“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV

382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court

325

citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT

154

citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust

144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court

124

citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA

458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO

135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT

109

citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

dividend to non- resident shareholders should be at the rate specified in the relevant article dealing with taxability of dividends in the agreement of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the country of residence of the non-resident shareholders and ought to have consequently granted a refund ... appeal raised by the assessee, vide its application dated 09/01/2023, pertains to the applicability of the rate of tax on dividend specified in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) between India and the country of residence of the non-resident shareholders, ITA No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) while

Sophos Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

paid on the dividends remitted to the shareholders (residents of United Kingdom), should not exceed the rate of 10% as prescribed in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered between India and United Kingdom. A reference was also made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining Arms’ Length Price

Ankit Vijaykumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1565/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 68

legal position as per binding judgments that once sales are accepted, addition of the amounts of sales and collection will amount to double taxation. It be so held now and addition of Rs. 48,02,549/- be deleted now. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL ... once sales were accepted and taxed in the profit and loss account, treating the same receipts again as unexplained cash credit would result in double taxation. The assessee relied upon several judicial precedents including decisions Ankit Vijaykumar Jain vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– of the Hon’ble Gujarat High

Janakee Petrolium, Satara vs. ITO WD-4, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2327/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2322 & 2327/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Janakee Petrolium, V Income Tax Officer, Gat No.1041/B, Wai Surru S Ward-4, Satara. Roadk Kavathe Wai, Satara – 415516 Pan: Aajfj9486C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tanzil Padvekar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Both Dated 20.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2023 & Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 10.08.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

partnership concern and another is proprietary concern. Ld.AR submitted that since in the 4 ITA Nos.2322 & 2327/PUN/2025 [A] interest of justice, as there is double taxation, Assessee may be provided one more opportunity to explain the facts. Ld.AR also pleaded that case may be set-aside to the Assessing Officer

Janakee Petrolium, Satara vs. ITO WD-4, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2322/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

M/S. Starburst Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 14(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

considered the year. Relief claimed: the addition of Rs. 1,05,52,000/- should be deleted as taxing the same as income leads to double taxation which is not the intent of the law. 4. Without prejudice to above, for that on the facts and in the circumstances

K Vinothkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2776/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Kaarthick, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

unexplained money even though the same has already been offered to tax in his returns. Therefore again bringing to tax the same tantamount to double taxation and hence the Ld CIT(A), erred in confirming the action of AO, which fact would this would demonstrate that the both authorities ... Ld.CIT(A), the assessee’s appeal may be set aside back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and decided together to avoid double taxation of ₹2.84 Crs is found reasonable. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, for the interest of natural justice and fair play

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5986/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C

appreciating that the provisions for expenses created in AY 2022-23 were duly reversed in the subsequent year (AY 2023-24), thereby resulting in double taxation for the Appellant. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the allegation of the Ld. AY 2021-22 & 2022-23 Strides Pharma

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5985/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C

Ravi Bansilal Darira, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5900/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2023-24 Ravi Bansilal Darira, Deputy Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Supreme Serenity, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), 16Th Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar Delivery S.O. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan : Aahpd2499M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vijay Jadhav For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)

assessee was a procedural necessity, since TDS was wrongly deducted under his PAN by the customers and submitted that the addition leads to impermissible double taxation, which as per settled legal position cannot be sustained. It was also submitted that the assessee has filed detailed submissions before the 3 Ld.CIT ... turnover of Rs. 29.49 crores. However, certain discrepancies were noticed by the Ld.CIT(A) and it was held by him that the claim of double taxation is only partly true and basis that and the fact that the assessee has claimed TDS credit, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 5069/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee submitted that same addition has been made in all the three assessment years u/s.69A of the Act which is nothing but double taxation. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Since the addition is made substantively in the assessment year 2017-18 take

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5068/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5067/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Mandya Narasimaiah Puneeth Kumar, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 2426/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kawadia, CA

Section 143(1)

Assessee was once again included in the business income of the Assessee. This has happened due to the incorrect punching and consequently double taxation. Aggrieved with the intimation where the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs 9,64,740/- against the income as per return of income ... returned income and therefore there is a double addition of the same income. Thus, the Assessee deserves to be heard that there is a double taxation of the same income. 8. The main issue before me is the rejection of the condonation of delay by the Ld. CIT(A). Given

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

settlement of NonConvertible Debentures and Masala Bonds as 'interest' and not giving the benefit of exemption under Article 13(5) of the India- Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP, erred ... settlement of NonConvertible Debentures and Masala Bonds as 'interest' and not giving the benefit of exemption under Article 13(5) ofthe India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA") 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Turf Estate Jv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6923/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 90A

provisions of sub section (2) of section 90A of the Act and the benefit availed by the appellant company under the relevant double taxation treaty entered into by India with the respective countries of the non-resident payees. Reliance is placed on the various judicial precedents as follows: i. Decision ... processes to the recipient which enables the recipient to apply the same on its own. 6.2. Further, on page 790 of Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions Third edition, Vogel comments that the criterion used to distinguish the provision of know-how from rendering advisory services is the concept

Sai Shraddha Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

ITA 2837/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(2)Section 43C

sales turnover in FY 22-23 therefore adding again in FY 21-22 as per your addition is not correct and amount to double taxation. This contention of the assessee seems to be satisfactory. As provision of the Act, if the assessee has adopted mercantile system of accounting, then income

Nobuhiro Watabe, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Ncw-17(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3179/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3179/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

that Section 90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7 In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form~67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

mentioned in the impugned order that, the time limit stood extended as a consequence of request for Exchange of information under Double Taxation avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax matters (MAC) made by the AO with the foreign competent authority, but according ... assessed to tax in the hands of Shri NRV and therefore addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly noted to have confirmed the addition of remaining sum of Rs.26